Download Justification for the Right to Private Defence and more Study notes Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Justification for Use of Private
Defense
Justification for Exercising Right to Private
Defence
Right of Private Defence under the Indian Penal Code
The right of private defence is defined under Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code. This right allows a person to protect their life, body, and property when faced with an imminent danger and there is no other recourse available. The right of private defence is preventive in nature, not punitive. The person claiming this right must prove that there was an apprehension of harm to their body or property. In the case of Beckford v. The Queen, the court held that a person is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force to protect themselves. The Supreme Court, in the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, laid down 10 guidelines for the usage of the right of private defence, emphasizing that a person does not need to be afraid to protect themselves from unlawful aggression.
Applicability in the Present Case
According to Section 97 of the IPC, every person has the right to protect their own body or the body of another person from any offense. In the present case, the accused, Satarangi Singh, was being forced to perform unnatural sex without his consent, which is a crime under Section 377 of the IPC. Therefore, the accused's actions fall within the scope of the right of private defence provided under Section 97 of the IPC, as he was protecting his own body from a non-consensual sexual act.
Conclusion
Based on the above arguments, it is submitted that the accused, Satarangi Singh, was justified in exercising his right of private defence under the Indian Penal Code, as he was faced with an imminent threat of a non- consensual sexual act, which is a criminal offense.
Elaboration of the Text
Right of Private Defence under the Indian Penal Code
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for the right of private defence in certain situations. Section 97 of the IPC allows for the right of private defence in cases of absolute necessity and where there is no recourse. The accused has the burden of proving that the use of private defence was the only way to defend himself from the aggressor.
Section 99 of the IPC provides for restrictions on the application of the right of private defence. It states that if there is no reasonable time to get assistance from public authorities, a person can use their right of private defence. The courts have held that the right to private defence originates from the idea of self-defence, which can be regarded as a fundamental right against any harm caused by another person. The accused has to prove that he was put in a dangerous situation where invoking the right of private defence was necessary.
Principles Governing the Right of Private Defence
The right of private defence is governed by certain principles:
Principle of Reasonableness : The right of private defence only exists when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger, and the private defence is only valid when the danger is real and imminent.
Principle of Proportion : The force used as private defence should be proportionate to the harm being caused by the aggressor. The person claiming the right of private defence has to prove that there was a reasonable apprehension of danger and that the force used was proportionate to the harm caused.
The courts have emphasized that the right of private defence has to be used as a preventive right and should be used judiciously. The law recognizes that it is difficult to expect a person exercising this right in good faith to weigh the maximum amount of force necessary with "golden scales."
Situations Where the Right of Private Defence Extends to
Causing Death
Section 100 of the IPC outlines situations where the right of private defence extends to causing the death of the assailant. These situations include:
Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. An assault with the intention of committing rape. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
to fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the appellant's right to private defence extended to causing the death of the deceased.
The counsel has already addressed the issue of the justified use of the right to private defence while dealing with the first and second issues. The High Court had also upheld the justified use of the right to private defence, but had erred in holding that the appellant had exceeded his right.
The counsel has clarified that the appellant has not exceeded his right of private defence. The actions of the appellant were well within the extent of self-defence provided under Section 100 of the IPC, and he has not committed the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC.
The act of private defence using a sword was 'reasonably proportionate' in the face of the real and imminent threat of sexual assault.
Prayer
In light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the counsel for the appellant humbly and respectfully prays before the Hon'ble Court that it may be pleased to:
Quash the Order of the Hon'ble High Court in the current matter; Declare that the appellant was justified in exercising his Right of Private Defence; Declare that the appellant has not exceeded his Right of Private Defence; Acquit the appellant of all charges against him;
And/or pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
